Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Hi James... long time no see. 
Wow. I am sorry to see a member of the NAS make such clearly incorrect and missleading statements. Even if he is not a Biologist. Let's look at a few.
2. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature.
3. What does what he mean by "the essences" of our fossil ancestors? Is he talking about the soul? Sounds rather religious to me. Are his objections to evolution really based on his religion?
The end stuff is about how supporting evolution against anti-science threats constitutes the creation of a controversy and how such a controversy serves no purpose. I agree it serves no purpose. If creationists/IDers would stop harassing teachers, museums and school boards, this controversy would come to a quick ending.
I want to thank James for bringing attention to this article. It clearly shows that just because you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences, does not mean you always know what you are talking about.
Wow. I am sorry to see a member of the NAS make such clearly incorrect and missleading statements. Even if he is not a Biologist. Let's look at a few.
What is "historical biology?" I have never heard this term used by a biologist. Sounds strangely like "historical science"...a term used only by Creationists/IDers. Also, the benefits of evolution to experimental science are numerous.
1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
2. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature.
3. What does what he mean by "the essences" of our fossil ancestors? Is he talking about the soul? Sounds rather religious to me. Are his objections to evolution really based on his religion?
Wrong. There isn't a species on earth which has not been "designed" by evolution. But the use of the term "design" here is another dead giveaway that his dude is an IDer.
Not only is this guy ignorant about biology, he is also ignorant about paleontology. Some fossils even preserve the internal structures of the fossilized organism. Guess Dr. Skell didn't know about that.
I don't know what this statement is supposed to be referring to, but regardless of what Ernst Chain might have said, this statement is false. It is also rather strange to cite a 1942 source to try and dispute the modern theory of evolution. I would think a member of the NAS would know better.
I guess this guy also never heard of Tiktaalik, and how the search for it was guided by predictions made based on the theory of evolution.
The end stuff is about how supporting evolution against anti-science threats constitutes the creation of a controversy and how such a controversy serves no purpose. I agree it serves no purpose. If creationists/IDers would stop harassing teachers, museums and school boards, this controversy would come to a quick ending.
I want to thank James for bringing attention to this article. It clearly shows that just because you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences, does not mean you always know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interesting how even the best credentialed people still cant actually come up with a single piece of real data that would falsify evolution. They look even more ridiculous than the amateurs in here with their embedded ages and 'why are there still monkeys?" talk.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Actually, I think he sounds more believable since he uses scientific terms. If you are a non-scientist, you could easily believe what he says.
The thing that is really telling about this guy and his motives, however is that he referred to a 1942 source that was way out of date. There is no way that a member of the NAS would do that unless he had a good reason. That reason clearly was deception. Dr. Skell must have known that evolution does explain drug resistance (a fact that most creationist organizations would not despute), but didn't want to give the theory such credit. So what does he do? He quotes an out of date source, to give the impression that evolution does not explain drug resistance. This is deceitful, and is one of the hallmarks of Creationist/IDer strategy. This is disgusting behavior that Dr. Skell should be ashamed of. What is it about creationists/IDers that make such behavior SOP?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
I looked that one up.
As a person, with an education in the biological sciences who appreciates and fully supports evolutionary theory (in other words, I am an evolutionist), I fully agree with that statement.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
Skepticism is not the same as disbelief or rejection. Any and all scientific claims should be regarded with skepticism. Just as any promotional claims made in advertisements should be regarded with skepticism (do you actually think the ShamWow works that well?)! Never take anyone's claims at face value, look at the evidence and how that evidence was interpreted and presented first.
Now in light of all the compelling evidence, my skepticism is satisfied to the point where I accept that the theory of evolution is real.
On the other hand, if I read an article in a magazine about evolution I must remain aware that the author may have misconceptions or biases. So, I read Discover with some degree of open minded skepticism towards the author.
"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Yes, I agree 100% with that one. I am a big supporter of research into basic as well as applied science.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
And yet I, a layman, can come up with a list of 20 or more reasonable off the top of my head. Why do C/IDers not understand that crazy straw man versions and ignorance show they really don't know what they're talking about?
Upvote
0
Mostly, I think, because they are able to elicit lots of back-patting and encouragement from people as undereducated as themselves, and positive adulation from people even less educated than that.
I'm a layperson myself, with no college level biology in my past - but I'm an addicted reader of everything that comes along, and profoundly interested in the natural world. It sometimes astonishes me that most people aren't even interested in knowing the names of the birds that inhabit their backyards, or the plants that grow along their sidewalks. It astonishes me that I still occasionally run into some adult who is astounded by seeing the moon in the sky in the daytime, or who thinks 'cabbits' are real possible animals.
There exists a large portion of the population who are just not interested in the natural world, who are entirely committed to living out their lives in the womb of family, job, entertainment and religion. Those people, when they are exposed to the sciences directly, as opposed to just enjoying the technological/medical/agricultural fruits of science, are gob-smacked by the implications. Evolution threatens their narrow world-view at the same time as it is incomprehensible to them: they have no foundation of inquiry or interest on which to base their response.
C/IDers are famous for using 'sciency' language, which doesn't for a minute fool anyone who actually follows real science, even in a desultory manner, but for those I described above, 'sciency' language is all it takes to reassure them that they needn't confront reality, that being wrapped in a wooly blanket of ignorance is a valid and worthy life stance, and that disturbing contemplations of things they don't like are unnecessary to feeling righteous and confirmed.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Jerry Coyne, who is criticised by our qualified chemist, is a world-renowned expert on speciation. Even if a chemist is qualified to comment on evolutionary biology (which I will only accept if you provide me evidence that he has studied it and understands what's going on) wouldn't you say a biologist who spent a career in that very field is just slightly more qualified?
Thanks for doing that. I was planning to correct all the wrongness, but in the end I couldn't be bothered. :o
QFT
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
